traffic accident question??

[CoryT]

Alright I have a question to ask, and I appreciate any and all input. I was recently involved in an accident that ICBC and myself have different opinions at who's at fault.
I approached and entered an intersection in the felt lane, intending to make a left hand turn. I sat in the intersection until the light turned yellow, and then I started to inch foward/through the intersection. I was proceeding slowly because there was a vechile in the opposing fast lane also making a left turn, so visibility was limited down the street. I then saw a *bling blinging* navigator barrelling towards me in the slow lane. I jammed on my brakes, he jammed on his brakes and smashed into me and skid through the intersection.
His drivers front corner right in front of the tire hit the same area on my vehicle, because I hadn't gone too far through the intersection. Now I'm not sure but I think he entered the intersection after the light had turned red, but not sure because I wasn't looking at the light, but I took my sweet time making the turn to be sure I was safe, and the yellow light isn't that long.
Now ICBC says that the accident was 100% my fault because I was the one "changing the direction of travel". They said it doesn't matter if he was speeding, or if he blew the red light, that I'm still the only one at fault. Isn't there a law about proceeding through a solid red light? And for that fact, isn't there a law about proceeding through a yellow light if it's unsafe? Are these not as serious infractions as "changing the direction of travel" so I'm still at fault??
Is ICBC trying to screw me or am I actaully at fault here, I'm not trying to cheat the system or anything, I just want them to be fair (right, like that is gonna happen
:rolleyes: )

[Bill]

You more than likely weren't at fault, but you have to prove it. You could just as well have turned in front of him on a green. ICBC must assume this if there weren't any witnesses.

[DMMcG]

Don't bother with the internal kangaroo "review" process at ICBC. Start a legal action and have the issue of liability determined by a judge. ICBC will abide by a judge's ruling, unless they appeal and win on the appeal.

If it's just "liability", and there are not injuries, you may wish to bring your legal action in the Provincial Court of BC, Small Claims Division. You don't get the opportunity to Discover (conduct an Examination for Discovery, under oath) the Defendant in a Provincial Court proceeding, but at least you get the chance to have an independent arbiter listen to your evidence and decide the issue.

You have 2 years from the date of your accident within which to sue the owner and driver of the motor vehicle that struck you. Thereafter, the Limitation Act takes away your right to have the matter decided by a judge.

[HiThere]

If there are no witnesses, and the other driver claims he had a green light, is there any way to prove he ran the red light?

[DMMcG]

Originally posted by HiThere
If there are no witnesses, and the other driver claims he had a green light, is there any way to prove he ran the red light?

Yes.

If a judge believes what you're saying, and finds that your recollection of events is preferable to the other driver's recollection of events (when compared to the physical evidence, and after each party has been cross-examined), then the judge will "find" that the light was red, the other driver ought to have been able to safely stop without going through the intersection, and you're not at fault for the collision.

I did a trial this week where my tattooed & unemployed fellow was stopped outside of a parkade in Gastown, with the other fellow (Defendant) exiting the parkade and somehow managing to clip the rear passenger corner of my fellow's camper on the way by. My fellow had been visiting a friend in the Detox Centre on Cordova.

The Defendant alleged that my fellow "must" have been backing up and into his path. He also gave evidence of how he was a "professional" driver, having taken a number of "emergency response" driving courses with the Justice Institute in the course of his employment etc etc etc. As you can appreciate, the Defendant was very smart looking, with his crew cut, professional courtroom demeanor and general sense of confidence.

My fellow had his lady friend in the front seat with him, and she didn't think that their vehicle had moved before impact, but ICBC had found my fellow 100% at fault because they thought he and his "girl" were making up a story - they were from Squamish and a little 'rough around the edges' (though very nice people - just not superficially so). I let my fellow where his piercings and whatnot in court, but did get him to remove his "colours".

After a little cross-examination of the Defendant the judge found that my fellow hadn't moved, the Defendant must have been "wrong" (judge's don't like to come out and find that a person is a blatant liar very often, so they'll couch things in terms of "mistake/error") and my fellow was blameless.

(In order for your claims rated scale with ICBC to not be affected, you need to have a judge find you 25% or less at fault for the collision.)

[skidmark]

You should also have a look at the section in the Motor Vehicle Act about yielding for left turns. That is in section 174 (http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/M/96318_03.htm#section174). I sometimes end up charging both drivers in these situations.

[CoryT]

skidmark, could you explain what this means
but having yielded and given a signal as required by sections 171 and 172, the driver may turn the vehicle to the left, and traffic approaching the intersection from the opposite direction must yield the right of way to the vehicle making the left turn. Does this mean that if I signal correctly and make a right turn when there is sufficient room, that someone travveling straght through can't speed up to hit me, knowing that they wouldn't be at fault? Or am I totally off with that?

[BlazerGirl]

If I were you, I'd contact the Ombudsman of BC. He's there to help you. ICBC is scared of them, becuase he's basically a lawyer that knows the laws and is there to help you, i think free.

Fight it, tell them you have nothing but time, and are awaiting a call from the ombudsman. You have atleast a year, for your claim and vehicle repairs.

http://www.ombud.gov.bc.ca/




Things that have helped me when I've dealt with ICBC is:

*Go into the meeting with however many drawings it takes to clearly SHOW the intersection/scene and the accident.
-Including, where all vehicles were prior to accident or where they were coming from; the vehicles in the accident; and how the vehicles were after the accident, moved or not.
(make copies before you go into the meeting, incase they want to keep the originals, even tho they will make you draw it out on one sheet infront of them)
-May sound childish, but use color. Use pencil crayons for the different cars. It helps when it gets all crammed together. You dont need to color everything.
-Go back to the school routes and make sure to make a legend. Such as and 'x' for your car and a '*' for theirs.

*Write out, in point form if you can, what happened.
-Make a story about the entire event. Make sure you have copies. Yes ICBC will ask you to recall what happened and type it out in their computers while you are there. But, the adjusters are known for putting it into their own words and sometimes changing things.
-Do your own. Make copies before you go in.
-include date, time, name, file number on everything!

*Take pictures of the intersection, from all the views you possibly can. Get them developed with copies.

*Make sure you get a copy of the police report, if applicable. They dont tell you that you are entitled to a copy and that they are supposed to give you one. If you take in the copy the officer gives you, they may try to take it from you. On the bottom it cleary states its your copy. Either way, make sure you have a copy.

*Make copies of the ICBC estimator quotes for the damage to your car.

*Put it all in a file folder. Make it ready for a professional presentation.

Even if you have already had the initial interview. You can still do all of this. If you end up going to court, it can all be presented. Maybe make a not and sign it, get your adjuster to sign it...stating that you are not happy with how things were presented in the first interview and would like to make things clear.


I've dealt with ICBC twice. First was 100% the other persons fault, but I had to prove that. Second time, was 100% the other persons fault, but since I crossed the centre line in trying to avoid the accident, they deemed me 25% (which is true, doesn't show up on your records). I haven't used the Ombudsman yet, but my brother had to.

Doing those steps trully does help your case and credibility.

Good luck ;)

[skidmark]

Don't you mean make a left turn?

[DMMcG]

Originally posted by BlazerGirl
[B]If I were you, I'd contact the Ombudsman of BC. He's there to help you. ICBC is scared of them,

The Office of the Ombudsman is the appointed governmental watchdog of the government. It makes "recommendations" to governmental bodies based on "fairness". It can't make ICBC change its position on liability, or compensate you for loss. It has no power to actually do anything, except make suggestions.



*Go into the meeting with however many drawings it takes to clearly SHOW the intersection/scene and the accident.
-Including, where all vehicles were prior to accident or where they were coming from; the vehicles in the accident; and how the vehicles were after the accident, moved or not.
(make copies before you go into the meeting, incase they want to keep the originals, even tho they will make you draw it out on one sheet infront of them)
-May sound childish, but use color. Use pencil crayons for the different cars. It helps when it gets all crammed together. You dont need to color everything.
-Go back to the school routes and make sure to make a legend. Such as and 'x' for your car and a '*' for theirs.

*Write out, in point form if you can, what happened.
-Make a story about the entire event. Make sure you have copies.
Yes ICBC will ask you to recall what happened and type it out in their computers while you are there. But, the adjusters are known for putting it into their own words and sometimes changing things.
-Do your own. Make copies before you go in.
-include date, time, name, file number on everything!

All of this is sound advice, but be aware that the more detail you give, and the more written documentation you supply to them, the greater their ability to find inconsistency. They will use whatever information they can against you. If you provide the same type of detail to a lawyer, then the concept of "legal privilege" applies, such that only those portions of the details that you provide that are helpful to your case are put forward.

If you aren't going to involve a lawyer, then review the information you intend to release to ICBC with a few people and ask them to look for inconsistency, self-serving statements, physical impossibility and the like, to minimize the possibility that the ICBC will use this information against you.

[CoryT]

oops, yea I meant left turn:D sorry

[BlazerGirl]

No they dont have super powers, but everytime that someone I know has even dialed the phone number on a cell phone in their office becuase of the adjuster being a prick, the adjuster has literally done a 180 and kissed some ass.



Originally posted by DMMcG


The Office of the Ombudsman is the appointed governmental watchdog of the government. It makes "recommendations" to governmental bodies based on "fairness". It can't make ICBC change its position on liability, or compensate you for loss. It has no power to actually do anything, except make suggestions.

[skidmark]

Once you have yielded to approaching traffic that is close enogh to be a hazard, the rest are supposed to yield and let you turn.

Don't ever expect it to happen.

[HiThere]

Here's a related question for you, Skidmark. A real case which happened to me some time ago.

Two vehicles facing North at a T-bone intersection. You can go left (West) or right (East), but cannot go straight (North), as there's no road there. The East-West road is making a curve at the intersection, making it somewhat hard for traffic facing North to see cars from the East. You could easily see the cars from the West from far away. The speed limit is 50

The first vehicle is a minivan, waiting to turn left (West). I am right behind, also waiting to turn left (West). We have a yield sign, and the main road (East-West) has no signs.

There's a pretty heavy traffic (East-West), so the minivan and I are waiting for about a minute. Finally, there's a substantial clearance. There are no cars from the East, that I can see, but, again, there's a curve, so I can't see very far, and the minivan driver has a better picture as to the East traffic. But there's a very sizeable gap in the West-bound traffic, which would easily allow three-four vehicles, let alone two, to turn left (West) safely.

So, the minivan driver is starting to turn left, quite confidently. I am right behind him, as I want to turn left with him. Just to make sure there are no cars from the East, I turn my head left, while still moving forward. I see no cars from the East, so happy as a clam I turn my head straight and what do I see? The minivan driver slammed on his breaks, apparently afraid of the West traffic, which was like 300 feet away. There are still no cars from the East, so he could not have possibly stopped for them.

Since I fully expected the minivan to turn, I ended up rear-ending him. It was very minor, a few scratches, he did not even call ICBC, but I am wondering if this accident was 100% my fault, or whether some blame should be assigned to the minivan driver

Thank you

[skidmark]

I could see this one coming about half way through the explanation.

I am not one that decides proportion of fault in a collision. I only look at all the circumstances and try to determine if anyone broke any of the driving rules, and if so, is there sufficient evidence to charge them for it.

The most likely thing I would look at here is following too closely. Did you leave sufficient room between you and the vehicle in front that if something happened you would not collide with the vehicle in front? If I were to have investigated here, likely I would have ticketed you for this.

189 (1) Except when necessary to avoid conflict with traffic or to comply with the law or the directions of a peace officer or traffic control device, a person must not stop, stand or park a vehicle as follows:

(c) in an intersection, except as permitted by a sign;

This makes it difficult to charge the vehicle ahead of you for stopping.

[HiThere]

Thank you, Skidmark, that's what I thought :)